The 'food insecurity' hoax

According to the U.S. Agriculture Department, American households suffer far more "food insecurity" than do families in Angola, Mozambique and Pakistan. The USDA
uses different standards to gauge domestic and foreign "food security,"
but neither measure make senses. Still, that technicality will do
nothing to deter politicians and pundits from demagoging the hunger
issue.

The Agriculture Department
reported Sept. 3 that 14.3 percent of American households — 49 million
people — suffered from "food insecurity" last year. This number is
little changed from last year despite the fact that the federal government is now feeding more than 100 million Americans.

The USDA
defines food insecurity as being "uncertain of having, or unable to
acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they
had insufficient money or other resources for food" at times during the year. Most of those USDA-labeled
"food insecure" did not run out of food; instead, they reported
"reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet" with "little or no
indication of reduced food intake."

If someone states that they
feared running out of food for a single day (but didn't run out), that
is an indicator of being "food insecure" for the entire year —
regardless of whether they ever missed a single meal. If someone felt
they needed organic kale, but could only afford
conventional kale, that is another "food insecure" indicator. If an
obese person felt they needed 5,000 calories a day but could only afford
4,800 calories, they could be labeled "food insecure."

One of the survey's preliminary screening question asks: "In the last
12 months, did you ever run short of money and try to make your food or
your food money go further?" Why should we be concerned that shoppers
want their food dollars to go further? This was formerly taught as a
virtue in high school home-economics classes, and now it is a pretext
for a federal alarm.

Even though USDA's
food-security statistics do not measure hunger, that is how the media
portrays the report. After the recent announcement, a Voice of America
headline proclaimed: "USDA: Hunger Threatens 1 in 7 Americans." A Philadelphia Inquirer headline lamented: "USDA:
Despite slight improvement, hunger persists." The Sioux Falls Argus
Leader in South Dakota announced: "Hunger a growing problem for South
Dakota." Slate declared: "The Number of Hungry Americans Has Barely
Fallen Since the Recession." The media are following in the footsteps of
President Obama, who announced after the 2009 food-security report was
released, that "hunger rose significantly last year … . My
administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger."

Some comments on the report focus on data highlighting the plight of
minorities. A North Dallas Gazette headline stressed: "Black families
facing hunger at nearly twice the rate
of other groups." But a survey by USDA's Agricultural Research Service
found that black children aged 2 to 11 consume significantly more
calories than white children.

Many liberals are invoking the USDA
report as proof that more food handouts are needed. Joel Berg, a New
York "anti-hunger activist" who pockets a six-figure salary thanks
largely to AmeriCorps grants, wailed, "A country that combines massive
hunger with record Wall Street markets is so derailed, we can't even
find our tracks anymore." But food insecurity has surged at the same
time that far more Americans became government dependents. The number of
food-stamp recipients soared from 26 million to 46 million at the same
time that food insecurity rose from 11.1 percent to 14.3 percent of the
nation's households.

Households relying on food stamps are far more likely to be "food insecure" than similar families
eligible for but not receiving food stamps. Perhaps relying on others
for one's next meal spurs insecurity. Many food-stamp recipients spend
the entire month's allotment on the same day they receive it. Some
reports indicate that binge-buying is sometimes followed by
binge-eating. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is maintaining an
iron curtain of secrecy around the program, refusing to disclose what
recipients purchase. Such data could be especially embarrassing now that
many fast-food restaurants are accepting food stamps for high-fat,
low-nutrient meals.

Though some commentators are touting the USDA
survey as proof that low-income people are severely deprived, the
Journal of the American Medical Association noted in 2012: "Among poor
populations, 7 times as many children are obese as are underweight." A
study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
in 2012 found that 35 percent of food-insecure adults were obese — a
far higher rate than for food-secure adults. Paradoxically, many
activists invoke that high rate of obesity to "prove" that recipients
need more free food.

"Food security" is something invented by government statisticians to serve political purposes. The Agriculture Department
uses a radically different standard when it estimates "food security"
for foreign nations, basing its judgments on whether residents
presumptively consume at least 2,100 calories per day. A recent USDA report declared that only 13.9 percent of the population in the world's 76 poorest nations is "food insecure." According to USDA,
most developing nations have zero problem with "food security" — a
conclusion that would shock the downtrodden residents in those
countries.

Some Americans are suffering badly, but the USDA
has never tried to accurately count the number of people who are
actually hungry. The agency is far more enthusiastic on pretending to
measure "food insecurity," because that produces vastly higher numbers
to justify expanding federal food programs. An honest survey of actual problems could wreak havoc on bureaucratic job security.